In-Game Etiquette, how far is too far?

Number 6 is not that horrible. The point of taking a capital is to take a player out of the game. Even a size 1, unrazable crappy city is still awesome if it mean one less person that can stop you.

Beside, he can only sell one building a turn and to pillage his own tiles, he need to build over it with a worker, since he cant actually pillage his own territory. Which mean free workers for you.
 
LostKnight said:
Number 6 is not that horrible. The point of taking a capital is to take a player out of the game. Even a size 1, unrazable crappy city is still awesome if it mean one less person that can stop you.

Beside, he can only sell one building a turn and to pillage his own tiles, he need to build over it with a worker, since he cant actually pillage his own territory. Which mean free workers for you.
Click to expand...

I did play a multiplayer game once where I was losing my Incan mountain empire to an Indonesian invasion. I had many, many awesome terrace farms that I wasn't about to let him have (had about 15+ farms IIRC). I turned them all into forts before he got to them.

I didn't really think it was BM, I mean, to let him have those Incan farms would have been OP (especially the 2-3 mountain ones), and he was engaged in pillaging and destroying me so I didn't think twice about it. Thinking back, it did nothing to save me, only harm him (and potentially give other people a chance). I didn't sell any buildings or starve my people though.
 
Tyrus said:
How would you personally feel about the following actions in a Civ 5 MP game?
Click to expand...

#1. You found a religion, and take the belief "Swords into Plowshares" (15% faster :c5food: growth rate if not at war). Another player, on the other side of the continent, declares war on you, just to remove the bonus and with no intention of invading, his position obviously completely impervious to an attack from you.

Fair.

#2. You sign a Declaration of Friendship with another player. The other player proposes a deal where he gives you a Luxury and you give him a lump sum of 200 gold. You accept. He immediately pillages your Luxury, ending the deal and keeping your gold.

Fair, albeit impossible. You don't get to just pillage your own tiles.

#3. It is early in the game, and your capital is located on the end of a peninsula. As you are preparing to expand, you find that someone has forward-settled you, purposely locking you into the peninsula, and taking your expansion spot, despite he having very ample room to himself.

Fair. Your purpose is now singularly his destruction.

#4. You are sending your first settler past the borders of another nation. That player buys the two tiles in front of and behind that settler, pinning it against a mountain or other borders, permanently trapping your settler and warrior.

Fair. Also kind of stupid.

#5. You are being supplied strategic resources to win a bloody war. At a critical moment (perhaps a siege of the capital), your supplier refuses to renew the deal, simply because he knows you are about to win and he wants to keep your hands full. You lose the resources and your units are annihilated.

Fair.

#6. You are about to take a capital. Your opponent realizes this, and sells all his buildings, pillages his improvements, and starves his city to hollow out your victory.

Again, impossible. Probably denounce-worthy.

#7. You are asked to declare war on your neighbor in exchange for gold. You do this, and after your units are moved, he uses his large navy to quickly take your capital.

Why did you mobilize an army? He didn't pay you to -do- anything.

#8. You are on the verge of conquering an enemy empire, but he uses his wealth and production to build/buy as many settlers as possible and settle random cities in as many annoying places as he can, such as between your cities.

Sack them later for gold.

#9. Someone continuously builds roads just outside your borders, so when your borders expand, you are forced to either send workers to delete them or pay the maintenance costs. (Roads in neutral territory are free to make.)

Roads in neutral territory are not free to make. Again, denounce-worthy.


The only unacceptable behaviours are the exploits and bad sportsmanship. The jury is still out on whether this game is even balanced competitively. Take it for what it is. (Don't let up on Firaxis to fix the bullcrap, though.)
 
Ive never seen the road thing done, thats pretty funny actually. Most of these problems are solved by just declaring war on the offender. Ideally before he can even offend.
 
None of these are bad IMO. Civ is a strategy game, and these are all cunning strategies. It would be unfair to say "use strategy, just not these ones." Besides, some of them can be avoided.
 
Civ 5 MP seems a lot about mindgames.

I seen some MP games but never played MP myself yet (where on earth do you get that kind of time?) but I'm sure MP it's a lot about mindgames. I think I would casually mention the "scorched-earth" strategy about selling buildings and starving my city in the chat. "I did that last time and people got angry, but I think it's a valid tactic".

Could potentially make you a lower priority target if players think you are determined to ruin your city and sell the best stuff before they can take it. It won't stop them but warmongerers might factor it into their decision when picking out their next victim. I think I would ;)
 
I would only say a few of these are bad tactics. Half of these are just standard diplomacy moves. Dont go to war relying on the resources of another. Dont trust people to much (because everyone is trying to win).

That being said I get your point.
I tend to play civ by emersing myself in the game. I am creating a civilization not just trying to win. Mulitplayer tobme is fun because diplomacy actually means something. You can back stab, form alliances and generally get more out of trades.

So for me any thing that breaks the fun of this bothers me. I can see the forward settling being annoying if the person was only dping it to be a jerk. If it didnt make sense for him to put a city there except to block me I would be annoyed. But mainly hecause I feel the game is more fun once everyone is established. Doing that so early just makes for a boring game.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
 
Waiting that other player moves his settler/warrior from same tile and immediately attack to steal settler. Thats very hilarious. I always do it if possible. It's actually very easy to do if other player is not expecting this trick. You just have to select your unit and wait from beginning of the turn until they move and BOOOOOM. It pisses other person very badly and you get free worker. Sometimes I just delete that worker if far away on next turn to make them even angrier. Of course it's usually one time trick.
 
BlackWizard said:
Waiting that other player moves his settler/warrior from same tile and immediately attack to steal settler. Thats very hilarious. I always do it if possible. It's actually very easy to do if other player is not expecting this trick.
Click to expand...

Wow, I would rank that was worse than anything the OP listed! It seems like an exploit of the simultaneous turn interface. If someone did this to me, I would ragequit. With a friend, it would be LOL, but still a reload.

Is there any place to try MP where, if a player pulled this stunt, there would be some kind of recourse?
 
I've never played MP yet, other than coop. A couple of questions:

1. Do people usually agree to certain rules when playing competitive MP? (By "rules", I mean rules that go beyond the in-game settings.) If so, is there a place I can read the "standard" set of rules for competitive MP?

2. Is collusion frowned upon and/or prevented in MP? For example, what if anything is done to prevent two players (e.g. friends) from agreeing to team up with one another before the game starts?

Thanks in advance.
 
1# is bad yup, but it's a stupid pantheon anyway IMO.

The rest are just inconceivable, impossible, stupid or valid strategies anyway.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackWizard
Waiting that other player moves his settler/warrior from same tile and immediately attack to steal settler. Thats very hilarious. I always do it if possible. It's actually very easy to do if other player is not expecting this trick.

Wow, I would rank that was worse than anything the OP listed! It seems like an exploit of the simultaneous turn interface. If someone did this to me, I would ragequit. With a friend, it would be LOL, but still a reload.
Click to expand...

yeah typical quitter action

why not instead learn your leasson and protect your settler with 2 units next time? or move warrior in between other unit and settler so your zoc prevents capturing.

as long as people dont understand that in mp others arent there to increase your lvl of fun but to give you a challenge mp will remain full of quitters
 
tommynt said:
as long as people dont understand that in mp others arent there to increase your lvl of fun but to give you a challenge mp will remain full of quitters
Click to expand...

Experienced players sniping newbs is boorish behavior. It is the lowest form of entertainment, which is a shame because social interaction is not usually a zero-sum game. And then you complain about MP being full of quitters. Yes, there is definitely a lesson be learned...
 
"Rage quitting" is far more of a social interaction offence than what tommy said so it goes both ways. Someone rage quitting because I've sniped their settler would get instantly black listed.

Stop excusing that behaviour.
 
I certainly understand that quitting is huge problem. IMHO, sniping unescorted settlers is totally different than exploiting a weakness in MP simultaneous turn that a newb could not possibly be aware of. This comes back to the question I asked:

Is there any place to try MP where, if a player pulled this stunt, there would be some kind of recourse?
Click to expand...

I understand black listing quitters. But quitting is not the worse behavior that one might wish to avoid...
 
I don't think it's an exploit. You'd have to be pretty dumb or extremely unlucky (like 1 in a million) to get your settler sniped while being protected. How long does it take to move two units :/

Honestly what's worse than quitting - other than blatant cheating? For verbose players you can just turn off the chat so don't tell me that's worse.
 
civjou said:
I don't think it's an exploit. You'd have to be pretty dumb or extremely unlucky (like 1 in a million) to get your settler sniped while being protected.
Click to expand...

BlackWizard said:
Waiting that other player moves his settler/warrior from same tile and immediately attack to steal settler. That's very hilarious. I always do it if possible. It's actually very easy to do if other player is not expecting this trick. You just have to select your unit and wait from beginning of the turn until they move and BOOOOOM. It pisses other person very badly and you get free worker. Sometimes I just delete that worker if far away on next turn to make them even angrier. Of course it's usually one time trick.
Click to expand...

I take BlackWizard’s assertion (emphasis added) at face value, and tommynt’s response collaborates that this is an exploit.

Honestly what's worse than quitting?
Click to expand...

Taking advantage of UI differences between MP and SP to snipe a settler from under an escort is worse. There may be other equally cheap tricks to play on newbs, but I would not know them.

For verbose players you can just turn off the chat so don't tell me that's worse.
Click to expand...

I don’t mind verbose, but I would expect a code of behavior that precludes profanity and racial slurs. You know, like CivFanatics has!
 
I guess we'll have to disagree as I don't see any logic in what you say.
 
Tyrus said:
I play a lot of MP, primarily in the No Quitters group. There are many actions in Civ 5 that, although not breaking any house rules, are so caustic that I simply don't do them for fear of actually earning the lasting hatred of the person I inflict it on. Over the years playing in NQ, I've witnessed far more emotional meltdowns over a game of Civilization than in any other strategy game, save perhaps StarCraft. Maybe it's the extreme time investment required, or the feeling of pride one takes in seeing their Civ grow, or just the many, many ways in which you can get burned in Civ. I've decided to prepare a list, and I now put it to this community.

How would you personally feel about the following actions in a Civ 5 MP game?

#1. You found a religion, and take the belief "Swords into Plowshares" (15% faster :c5food: growth rate if not at war). Another player, on the other side of the continent, declares war on you, just to remove the bonus and with no intention of invading, his position obviously completely impervious to an attack from you.

#2. You sign a Declaration of Friendship with another player. The other player proposes a deal where he gives you a Luxury and you give him a lump sum of 200 gold. You accept. He immediately pillages your Luxury, ending the deal and keeping your gold.

#3. It is early in the game, and your capital is located on the end of a peninsula. As you are preparing to expand, you find that someone has forward-settled you, purposely locking you into the peninsula, and taking your expansion spot, despite he having very ample room to himself.

#4. You are sending your first settler past the borders of another nation. That player buys the two tiles in front of and behind that settler, pinning it against a mountain or other borders, permanently trapping your settler and warrior.

#5. You are being supplied strategic resources to win a bloody war. At a critical moment (perhaps a siege of the capital), your supplier refuses to renew the deal, simply because he knows you are about to win and he wants to keep your hands full. You lose the resources and your units are annihilated.

#6. You are about to take a capital. Your opponent realizes this, and sells all his buildings, pillages his improvements, and starves his city to hollow out your victory.

#7. You are asked to declare war on your neighbor in exchange for gold. You do this, and after your units are moved, he uses his large navy to quickly take your capital.

#8. You are on the verge of conquering an enemy empire, but he uses his wealth and production to build/buy as many settlers as possible and settle random cities in as many annoying places as he can, such as between your cities.

#9. Someone continuously builds roads just outside your borders, so when your borders expand, you are forced to either send workers to delete them or pay the maintenance costs. (Roads in neutral territory are free to make.)

So what do you think? Legit and okay, annoying but okay, infuriating and not EVER okay? Would you play games with someone who plays like this? Honestly, I don't even worker steal even when I can because (a.) I know how that feels and (b.) I'm probably going to earn the eternal enmity of that player, long after that game is over. Although many of these things do constitute "optimal play" (jailing settlers and DoWing peace-based abilities), they also may inspire much hatred and ruin someone's game. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

1: I would not take this pantheon for this very reason. play with good players -> they declare war on you, play with bad players -> you win the game anyway.

2: This is not acceptable, it is essentially abusing the same bug as in G&K

3: obviously this is fine, enemies trying to make me lose is the most acceptable thing in the world :)

4: the gold is not worth it for the other player, you can simply declare war also if you want.

5: Clever use of trades, i dont see anything wrong with this, usually it is encouraged that players to try prevent the leading guy from winning the game, cancelling deals with the leading player certainly helps in this manner.

6: How can you pillage your own improvements? Im fine with selling buildings, as it helps the losing side in a very direct manner, starving is also fine, usually its not a big deal since sometimes you want to take small cities to minimize the unhappiness, if the defending player only has 1 city left, i would though consider this bad mannered, as it does not help the defending player in any way, though i do think that he should put up as much resistance as possible, this could involve selling buildings for gold to buy units/Walls.

7: this is fine, clever diplomacy MUST and SHOULD be a part of civ, you can anticipate this.

8: this is fine, usually i will have mounted units to run settlers down, and potentially he settles more cities for me, or uses cash/hammers for settlers instead of units, which would be more obnoxious

9: i dont know anyone who would waste worker turns on this, the solution is simply to steal his workers.
 
Here are more "dirty" tricks left out...

#10. Pillage road in neutral territory - this won't cause war and you break a city connection.

#11. Pillage lux of a city state to cause another player to lose happiness. Of course take the worker so it won't be able to repair the lux.

#12. Declare war, then immediately make peace with a player. This happens a lot when people have a unit stuck by expanded boarders. Now that they cannot declare war on you for a bit, exploit the forced peace... such as attack other player's ally so they cannot help out. Or pillage road in neutral territory and sit unit on the road so it can't be repaired... or use you units to block his settler/units, etc... lots of creative ways to exploit this.

#13 starving coastal cities - declare war, and keep ship out of ranged unit attack, but now their coastal resources cannot be worked.

#14 The Big City State steal - buy up opponent's city states and declare war before they are able to buy them back.

#15 Plant a city close to opponent's capital, then citadel right to his city - if he has been at peace all game and you were at war saving generals, you can chain citadels and he won't be able to citadel back for many turns... during which time he loses many of his good tiles and units next to his cap lose hit points every turn... with roads on these citadels, multiple mounted units can strike the cap every turn and retreat.

#16 - Cargo ship weakness - works best when you are the first person to Astronomy. Use fast caravel to pillage all sea trade routes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
[BTS] Who are your favorite Leaders/Civs?
Replies
10
Views
622
Plains-Cow
Plains-Cow
A
Pure Vanilla - Civ4 with historical periodifications
Replies
0
Views
101
Anba02
A
kryat
Borders and True Diplomacy in Civ VII
Replies
1
Views
359
luca 83
luca 83
Slyceth
  • Locked
(7-VT) Pledging fealty to an AI player to cure constant frustratingly petty war declarations.
Replies
5
Views
291
axatin
A
S
Is Tall Tradition "Too Brittle" - an analysis
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
7K
alchx
A
Top Bottom